[Headache]

It's a reoccurring theme that I've been noticing around here and in the media. I put Liberals in quotes because these attacks are usually pointed in a general Left direction.

Myself, I don't quite know what I am, although I do believe that I lean more left than right. From what I've seen and heard from discussions I've had with "Liberals" is that in general, they are for the welfare of society as a whole (and not Welfare for the whole society). That's probably the main reason why I lean to the left too, is because in my perfect world there aren't people starving on the streets or staying sick because they can't afford healthcare. I obviously understand that there is going to be some financial divide as people that work harder and go to school deserve much more money than a high school dropout. However just because they made a poor decision and can now only work in a factory shouldn't be a condemnation to not have a satisfactory standard of living. And just because I want to give that guy a little assistance if he ever gets laid off to be able to eat and see a doctor doesn't mean that I want all the money everyone makes to be distributed evenly amongst the masses.

Either way, this thread is not to discuss whether my ideologies are right or wrong. The point is, for a group of people (people to the left) that seem to be the most compassionate towards others, how does it ever come across as hatred of any kind? I think one thread out there is "Why do Liberals hate economics?" or some nonsense like that. Is that for real? How did the standard rebuttal for not supporting something become "well that means you hate it then" (not that Liberals are against economics. I've moved on). You're pro-abortion? That means you hate babies. Pro-welfare? That means you hate business. Pro-Making sure food and drugs are checked before mass consumption? You hate freedom. Anti-War? You hate America. Pro-Acceptance of other religions? You hate Christians. Not to mention that as soon as there is a disagreement with something that is more Conservative than you'd like it to be, you're automatically either a Socialist, Marxist or whatever other current buzz-word, "negative" ideology that can get thrown at you.

How did it get to this? Where are these "hatred" claims coming from? Is there some Liberal out there going around hating on everything that I don't know about? Kinda confused.

[Otinanai]

Liberalism and Left are too wide a meaning and the Left on one country might not agree on the Left on another country. Conservatism again is not as clear either as is the right not clear. An extreme right will want more government, as an extreme left. Which doesn't agree with the less extreme right or left, as an example. The world is not 2D. So the real answer is that people are just labeling things as "liberal" or "conservative" without they actually being so all the time. Anti-war can come from any point of the "imaginary line" and is completely irrelevant, again as an example.

But in any case, the idea of equality and communism I would agree that they are twisted in the US. Though, you cannot say that don't have hatred. A lot do to the entire capitalistic system. If you see something wrong you are suppose to wait for a peaceful solution? Maybe in a perfect utopia.

Of course hating babies because you are pro-abortion and the similar are exaggerations. Nobody unbiased actually believes these phrases. I mean, seriously, most people don't care enough to hate in the first place...

I think though that Conservatives are accused for the same things. War-defenders=like killing people.
SOLUTION: accept that the media are unbiased and either close the TV or try to ignore the exaggerations and the meaningless political warfare. It is not a secret either. List some media channels and tell me which ones actually claim to be unbiased. Not actually be, but even claim. Which is something that a sane person would think that it is an obvious requirement!

[Cartertonian]

How did the standard rebuttal for not supporting something become "well that means you hate it then"

This is something I've been banging on about for some time, so it's nice to see reinforcements coming in.

As far as I'm concerned this all stems from having an 'adversarial' approach to our political debate. I think there's a general belief (that I don't share) that the more passionate, acrimonious, vitriolic and ultimately polarised the debate, the better the quality of the final decision. Personally, I would prefer that the debate was dull, boring and uninpsiring, but ultimately led to a decision that was agreeable - or at least acceptable - to the greatest number.

As a result of this drive for 'colourful' debate, it is commonplace to attribute the very worst imaginable excesses of character to one's opponents and paint a picture of them as insane monsters, because thaat is perceived as bolstering one's own position. I'm somewhat left of centre, too, and it is tempting (and I have succumbed to such temptation on occasion) to characterise those on the right as uncaring, if not downright evil, for their apparent enthusiasm for maintaining a poor, disenfranchised underclass. But the reality is that (almost) none of them actually think like that, it just serves the left's purpose to characterise the right in that way...

...and so on...

...and so on...

It's all a bit depressing, really, but I suspect the eager and enthusiastic youngsters who make up the majority of this particular online community would far rather indulge in passionate, acrimonious, vitriolic and ultimately polarised debate and would find the prospect of debate that was dull, boring and uninpsiring equally depressing.

I started a thread some days ago, inviting PoFoites to consider the common ground that should exist between them - at least in terms of what we wanted to achieve. My hypothesis is that we get too bogged down in the mecchanics of how we achieve something and lose sight of what it is we're trying to achieve.

Hey ho! It seems passionate argument beats sober debate for our particular demographic.

[eugenekop]

No one wants to see poor people on the streets, that's why there is charity. The problem with the left is that they want to take people's money by force and hand it out. That's in my opinion unacceptable. Even worse leftists usually don't help these people, they give handouts instead of handing opportunities.

Now about the hate rhetoric, I think it is actually more directed towards rightists than towards leftists. The right-wingers are usually vilified as racists, warmongers and haters in general. In Israel you can barely say anything against the left political establishment. If you do, you are immediately pictured by the media as a dangerous racist and a psychopath.

People by nature have a hard time understanding others and their motives. They vilify others instead. I think there is too much cynicism, negativity and intolerance in general. This cynicism leads to conspiracy theories about evil politicians and corrupt policemen. I think most people view their elected officials as bloodthirsty maniacs, and business owners as greedy evil bastards. That's really silly.

[Headache]

Not in America it's not. If you ever listen to the Right media you will hear LOADS of "the left hate your freedoms blah blah blah." Same can't really be said for the Left media. Granted, the Left media is condescending towards the Right, but usually in the form of humour as they usually take a comedic approach (Bill Maher, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert). The Right, on the other hand, have entertainers that take a hard-lined approach to expressing their opinions (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh) which people take as serious news when it isn't. That type of mentality has transcended onto places like this where you can clearly see that the "Why do (blank) hate..." topics are generally directed in the direction of the Left wing.

As for your charity thing, you know it wouldn't be enough. As it is, there are already policies in place to help prevent things like that from happening and charity is STILL very much needed. Charity will probably increase if taxes are gone, but it won't be enough. The left don't want to take money by force either, rather feel it is a social responsibility and helps to improve everyone's standard of living. What good is it to live in a mansion if there's a ghetto right around the corner.

[eugenekop]

The left don't want to take money by force either, rather feel it is a social responsibility and helps to improve everyone's standard of living. What good is it to live in a mansion if there's a ghetto right around the corner.

The left want to increase taxes especially for a minority of people whom they consider "rich". If you refuse to pay these taxes you go to jail. So yes, it is done by force.

If you suffer so much from ghettos, please donate money, but don't force me to pay, because I will just prefer to relocate to another place. There are billions of people who are much poorer than myself, you can't help everyone. However you can act morally and stop demanding that other people pay for what is important to you. I think for example that it is much important to improve education rather than give handouts, that's why I will donate to schools. Let everyone live his own life and let everyone have control over his own assets. Is that so difficult to do?

[anyrandsucks]

And why do conservatives hate?
Seems to me that there's more hatred among the right.

[Nattering Nabob]

How did the standard rebuttal for not supporting something become "well that means you hate it then"

It is a result of all the money that people are making off of editorialist news journalism which hit it's stride with the advent of the 24 hour news channel...the more vitriol you spew the more viewers you have...

The real question is why there is not an equally large market on the left for such tripe...

[Rich]

Well I have to say you picked a damn funny time to pick on the Liberals. This is the season for the Christians to spread their message of hate. No Christians don't think, I haven't rumbled you. Oh that lovely cuddly nativity story, but its really just an excuse to spread anti Jewish hatred with their lie about Herod massacring the innocents. Its so obviously a lie as well. In Luke the author had invented an equally fanciful but far less unsavoury imaginary world wide tax census as the plot device to get Jesus born in Bethlehem (David's city) but back to Nazareth so "he could be called a Nazarene". This is not a one off accident. there's the invention of Judas: in the original Greek Judah and Judas are the same word, so what the story really says is that Jesus was betrayrd by a man named Jew. Or there's the lie where the Jewish crowd are made to shout, "his blood on us and on our children".

I pick on Christians, just because they are a rather topical example of how nearly every ideology ends in hatred. On an individual level, love and concern for selves or our friends and family can be a powerful motivator. We also see in warfare that it is a soldiers bonds to his immediate Comrades that are an incredible source of bravery and altruism. But on the large scale hate is far more powerful, not only than love but also greed. So you see this with Libertarians, they are willing to sacrifice no end of time, energy and money in their hatred of "welfare free loaders". You see it with the Palestinians, they willing to endure no end of hardships in order to make the Jewish Israelis they hate suffer at least a bit. Stalin was a very talented man. He could have probably have been a very successful businessman or non political criminal if he had devoted a fraction of the energy he put into his ideological work. Prior to 1917 he made incredible sacrifices, and it was hatred that sustained him in the barren years between the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. So Liberals are no different. The world is so unjust, its so far from how we think it ought to be. We can't make it just. But we can channel our frustration of the world into hatred of particular groups. Its easier to focus on the hypocrisies, lies and stupidity of our political opponents than to look too deeply into our political powerlessness.

[Negotiator]

Seems to me that there's more hatred among the right.

Well, I dont know about HATE - but I think the crucial difference between right and left nowadays is FEAR.

Fearsome people will vote right, fearless people left.

Thats how right winged people often argue - by spreading fear.

Of course, one could do a Jedi saying here and claim fear leads to hate, and maybe thats true.

[Rich]

I think the left use a fear a lot. If Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination, I think we can assume that they'll be playing the fear card big time. I remember in the cold war, CND tried to use fear of nuclear war to get us completely surrender to Communist totalitarianism.

[Genghis Khan]

In Israel you can barely say anything against the left political establishment. If you do, you are immediately pictured by the media as a dangerous racist and a psychopath.

Or the right. You're dismissed as an Arab sympathizer and naive about handling terror, or someone who wants to "divide Jerusalem".

[emoshunless]

"Right wing" speakers, speaking at colleges must hire body guards for fear of their safety...
In fact I'm listening to a podcast lecture of one right now, who not only had to hire body guards, but the college itself provided 12 armed police guards in order to protect those attending the lecture. Yes you'll see hate on both sides but there is no doubt where the majority of the hate comes from and is acted upon.

There is a saying "Conservatives think liberals are wrong, liberals think conservatives are evil"

It easily seen through out these forums, the right are said to be racist, bigot, sexist intolerant people, why wouldn't one believing this tactic used to eliminate thought, hate the monsters they create in their head?

[redcarpet]

Something us gay people have to accept is that some heterosexuals think gay males 'hate' women. Lol.

[JMak00]

Ask Harry Reid why he hates Republicans.

Ask Sheila Jackson-Lee why advocating the repeal of Obamacare necessarily means that you're killing Americans.

I just love watching American lefties contort themselves arguing that the righties are big meanies and lefties are innocent victims. Typical though, fits that victimhood ideology.

[Conscript]

If I just had a dime for every time I heard 'i love it when lefties do x' from the right...

[JMak00]

Did someone say that fearless people vote left? WTF?

Hmmm, consider welfare reform, social security reform...grandmothers going hungry? Remember Gore trotting out little old ladies (only to tun out they it was a hoax)?

Consider the attempt to repeal Obamacare, and even the effort to pass it. Premised on fear.

Hell, Obama's campaign was partly premised on fear.

Sickening descriptions provided by some folks here...they simply cannot comprehend that someone else disagrees with them so they argue that their opponents are ideologues, fearmongers, etc. In reality, you are intellectually weak and your arguments vacuous. Most typically you sympathize with the masters of the gulags.

[Varrick]

Sickening descriptions provided by some folks here...they simply cannot comprehend that someone else disagrees with them so they argue that their opponents are ideologues, fearmongers, etc. In reality, you are intellectually weak and your arguments vacuous. Most typically you sympathize with the masters of the gulags.

Comments like this are the issue. You make some very bold statements, written in flamboyant rhetoric, and then fail to provide any support whatsoever to your statement.

The problem with both sides is that they believe that buy attacking the person instead of disproving the idea effectively, they have won the argument. Saying that pro-abortionists 'hate life' doesn't make your stance any stronger. Saying that those who oppose taxes are rednecks is the same thing.

No matter what side you're on, credible reasoning should be the base of any idea or stance you have.

[nucklepunche]

It is because this is what conservative talk radio, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Hannity, have been promoting for years. I know it because I listen to them even though I disagree with them. According to Glenn Beck anybody who leans to the left does not actually believe in social justice/equality, but in fact is part of a mass conspiracy of people who simply hate freedom and want control.

[Wolfman]

The quotes should have been around the word 'hate'.

I think one thread out there is "Why do Liberals hate economics?" or some nonsense like that. Is that for real?

Every position on economics is different, that doesn't mean that one side hates economics. In the exact same way that a Libertarian could say that a Far Leftie hates the economy, a Georgist could say that Libertarians hate the economy. And ultimately, the Georgist would be just as correct as the Libertarian.

How did the standard rebuttal for not supporting something become "well that means you hate it then" (not that Liberals are against economics. I've moved on). You're pro-abortion? That means you hate babies. Pro-welfare? That means you hate business. Pro-Making sure food and drugs are checked before mass consumption? You hate freedom. Anti-War? You hate America. Pro-Acceptance of other religions? You hate Christians.

It's called a Red Herring. It's a a general category of informal fallacy, where the person attacks his/her opponent instead of actually making a rebuttal (the specific, 'you hate x' is mostly an Appeal to Emotion within the Red Herring category). So, saying that someone who is pro-abortion hates babies is a red herring, because it attacks the pro-abortion person, without actually defending anti-abortion, or even really trying argue against abortion itself. The goal of a red herring attack is to make the person being attacked feel about a position they hold and get them to change their position. So, by saying a person who is pro-abortion hates babies, that person might change their position on abortion simply to avoid having to actually defend/fight a position logically.

Not to mention that as soon as there is a disagreement with something that is more Conservative than you'd like it to be, you're automatically either a Socialist, Marxist or whatever other current buzz-word, "negative" ideology that can get thrown at you.

Also a Red Herring. This is called an Ad Hominem, where the person is directly insulted instead of there being a rebuttal.

Now about the hate rhetoric, I think it is actually more directed towards rightists than towards leftists. The right-wingers are usually vilified as racists, warmongers and haters in general. In Israel you can barely say anything against the left political establishment. If you do, you are immediately pictured by the media as a dangerous racist and a psychopath.

The OP seems to be referring to the situation in America, not in general. So, really, any situation in Israel is basically besides the point. And why you're even posting in this thread is beyond me.

And if you're wondering, OP, what my standard response is, it's to quote the specific part of the argument that is fallacious and tell them to go try again.